Jollybear
Hey
Who invented the test?
Hi! Its the ladybug!
The bible says that the Lord God gave this test.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who invented the test?
Hi! Its the ladybug!
The bible says that the Lord God gave this test.
Why? God would have known whether she was an adulteress or not.
Thats true, GOD would know. But, society would not know.
And God also knew that most people are separated and out of tune with him to hear.
Plus, God set up the chain of authority. Moses had a direct link to God, Arron linked with moses, ect.
Don't you think its a rather stupid test? I mean for God and all.
So abortion is okay, if the wife cheated and the husband wants the abortion?No, why would it be stupid? Its a lie detector test.
And why in the world did dan press like to your post when he suppose to be a christian? That means he believes in Jesus, and Jesus believes in the old testament.
Whats going on with that bunny rabbit?
God dont need the test, he knows, but society dont know.
So abortion is okay, if the wife cheated and the husband wants the abortion?
A lie detector where a fetus dies if the wife cheated. It appears that you do not understand the passage.Its not an abbortion.
Its a lie detector test.
A lie detector where a fetus dies if the wife cheated. It appears that you do not understand the passage.
Right, the fetus dies if she cheated.
Which means she can confess and not have the fetus die.
And if she does not then the abortion is justified? Those are some very strange morals.
By the way, do you remember the punishment for cheating?
No she is not. She is giving her fetus the only chance it has. As you admitted, the punishment is death. Either way both die, unless the "test" does not work. Her best strategy and her fetus's best strategy is to always say that she did not cheat.No, its not justified. By not confessing, shes basically murdering her unborn child. All in the name of her pride and not trusting that the test will do anything.
Yes, death.
No she is not. She is giving her fetus the only chance it has. As you admitted, the punishment is death. Either way both die, unless the "test" does not work. Her best strategy and her fetus's best strategy is to always say that she did not cheat.
You don't know much about "justice" back then.Whos saying she dies before the baby is born?
When a person can act to rectify a harmful situation, but chooses not to, it amounts to an act of omission. It's like standing on the shore watching someone drown when you could easily stop the drowning. I believe that to a significant degree you deserve to be held responsible for the drowning. Now, if you don't believe god has any obligation to act in a loving and merciful way, preventing a miscarriage, then you obviously feel god isn't responsible; however, I believe that preventing the miscarriage would be the loving and merciful thing to do, and failing to do so makes him irresponsible, to say the very least.God does not cause miscarriages so God is not responsible for them.
Yup. It's his ballgame. He decided that humans would be inclined to murder and rape, and act on that inclination.You could say that about anything bad that happens in the world, such as murder or rape. God could prevent it and God failed to prevent it and so God is responsible for it.
Why wouldn't you expect a supreme loving, just, and merciful god to be just that; loving, just, and merciful?That is so illogical and unjust.
That's where we part company. I don't believe freewill exists, so any point predicated on it is moot.The big huge fat fly in the ointment is that God gave humans free will and humans are responsible for their own decisions and actions.
Then just how does he qualify as loving, just, and merciful? That sometimes he's a nice guy?I would really question your logic. Just because God is omnipotent does not mean God has to USE His power to prevent everything in the world that you think is bad.
You think that but since you are not God, you are not All-Knowing, so you do not KNOW what the loving and merciful thing to do would be. There are reasons for everything, and we cannot know what they all are, because we are not God. Moreover, you do not know what happens to those souls who are miscarried in the spiritual world.When a person can act to rectify a harmful situation, but chooses not to, it amounts to an act of omission. It's like standing on the shore watching someone drown when you could easily stop the drowning. I believe that to a significant degree you deserve to be held responsible for the drowning. Now, if you don't believe god has any obligation to act in a loving and merciful way, preventing a miscarriage, then you obviously feel god isn't responsible; however, I believe that preventing the miscarriage would be the loving and merciful thing to do, and failing to do so makes him irresponsible, to say the very least. .
It is A, but you are not All-Knowing, so you have no idea what constitutes “acting in a loving and merciful way,” only God knows that. God acts in our best interest at all times because God is loving and merciful. We do not know what is best for us, only God knows that, because God is All-Knowing and All-Wise and God knows us better than we know our own selves.Your choice:
A) To qualify as a loving and merciful being requires one to act in a loving and merciful way where ever possible.
B) To qualify as a loving and merciful being does not require one to act in a loving and merciful way, ever.
C) God is not a loving and merciful being, and whatever he does, good or bad, is in keeping with his character. .
No, it is our ballgame. Humans are like chess pieces on a chess board moving around. God gave us the chess board to move around on but God is not IN the game. God gave man two natures, not just a nature that is inclined to murder and rape, but also a nature that is inclined to love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice.“You could say that about anything bad that happens in the world, such as murder or rape. God could prevent it and God failed to prevent it and so God is responsible for it.”
Yup. It's his ballgame. He decided that humans would be inclined to murder and rape, and act on that inclination. .
I do expect that and He is. But sometimes we do not see it because your ego gets in the way.Why wouldn't you expect a supreme loving, just, and merciful god to be just that; loving, just, and merciful? .
Just because you do not believe in free will does not mean it does not exist. How do you think anything happens if people do not make choices according to their will? How free we are to make choices we might want to make is another matter.“The big huge fat fly in the ointment is that God gave humans free will and humans are responsible for their own decisions and actions.”
That's where we part company. I don't believe freewill exists, so any point predicated on it is moot. .
Being a nice guy, or beneficent, means God is loving, just and merciful, but that does not necessarily look the way we think it should look, because we do not know what is in our best interest, only God knows that, so what we want is not always what is best for us. That is a difficult pill to swallow because it does not always give us what we want. But those of us who have been to hell and back doing it “our way” finally realized that God’s way works better.“I would really question your logic. Just because God is omnipotent does not mean God has to USE His power to prevent everything in the world that you think is bad.”
Then just how does he qualify as loving, just, and merciful? That sometimes he's a nice guy? .
You don't know much about "justice" back then.
When a person can act to rectify a harmful situation, but chooses not to, it amounts to an act of omission. It's like standing on the shore watching someone drown when you could easily stop the drowning. I believe that to a significant degree you deserve to be held responsible for the drowning. Now, if you don't believe god has any obligation to act in a loving and merciful way, preventing a miscarriage, then you obviously feel god isn't responsible; however, I believe that preventing the miscarriage would be the loving and merciful thing to do, and failing to do so makes him irresponsible, to say the very least.
That's where we part company. I don't believe freewill exists, so any point predicated on it is moot.
No more so than a woman who doesn't cheat.Question: does the cheating woman have any responsibility in her miscarriage?
Because, in order to show what I believe are the errors in an opponent's thinking it's often necessary to assume the position they're coming from, one wherein freewill is the operative agent. It's comparable to debating Biblical issues on the basis that the relevant components are true when I don't believe they actually are. An example is the problem of fitting earth's 8.7 million species on the ark when I don't believe the ark really existed, but to show the absurdity of it all I have to assume it didIf you dont believe free will exists, then why do you hold God responsible, or the man on the shore responsible to save the drowning? There just doing what there predetermined to do, they cant help it, right? So why hold them responsible to do that which you know they cannot do, since they have no will?
No more so than a woman who doesn't cheat.
Because, in order to show what I believe are the errors in an opponent's thinking it's often necessary to assume the position they're coming from, one wherein freewill is the operative agent. It's comparable to debating Biblical issues on the basis that the relevant components are true when I don't believe they actually are. An example is the problem of fitting earth's 8.7 million species on the ark when I don't believe the ark really existed, but to show the absurdity of it all I have to assume it did